> So you haven't accepted a copy of Watchtower then ??? ;))))

Trying to keep this as secular as possible ...........

Well, yes actually. My late stepfather indulged them so they come
back every few weeks. Now he's gone, I do try to have a debate
with them. Unfortunately their organisation frowns on - to put it
mildly - independent thought and ideas so my views on how it
cherrypicks from science (which is evident from reading the WT
and other JW literature) to support its own interpretations and
disprove others' interpretations generally fall on unresponsive ears

As much as they believe, I don't

Which is the case for many groups - economists, socialists, educators,
polititians etc etc. There are as many opinions about how things should
be done as there are people. I do believe though that good scientists
are willing to accept new theories, ideas, can assess evidence and have
open minds.

But minds not so open that their brains fall out

The problem with what I started the thread about is that the product's
claims don't even reach the standards of circumstantial evidence. No
journal papers, no peer reviews, no (credible, with current or even
proposed science) explanations, no blind testing, no exhaustive lab
work ... Subjectiveness just doesn't cut it

They may well be on to something, but the back-up is too often so
piss poor, and a tiny grain of what might be truth is inflated beyond
common sense and credulity

Amen

Joe


-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2016.0.7357 / Virus Database: 4522/11477 - Release Date: 01/24/16

--=20
http://www.piclist.com/techref/piclist PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.